Reply to statement of the chancelors (so that I don't have to post it again):

So what. What's the point of writing it. They just posted an opinion on the matter and didn't do anything further. A waste of time if you ask me...

They don't have to do anything further. We'll take it from there.

Btw, it's not a waste of time: a legal opinion is required for changes, according to the constitution. Yet another reason why the Feb. "decision" and the April followup don't pass the smell test.

What is the next step though, based on THIS (most recent) statement? Legal action? considering that what they did was give a legal opinion, that would seem to be the only next step...or is it just me?

Legal action? Not necessarily. What this, the official statement of the chancellors in their official capacity in discharge of their offical duties under the constitution, does is take the legal cover from the supporters of the change, and transfers it to those opposed. Per the constitutions own wording, such a statement is required for any change. Since there is already a General Assembly scheduled, and now the change has been found wanting by the Archdiocese officiers charged by the constitution to examine such things, it more or less is automatically now on the agenda for said Assembly. Should those trying to push it continue to try to ignore the challenge, the more it is going to come to the fore. And should it come to legal action, this now perhaps takes the edge off the refuge of being a hierarchal Church under the law (sort of like how St. John was able to leave the OCA and takes its Church to ROCOR).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Reply to statement of the chancelors (so that I don't have to post it again):

So what. What's the point of writing it. They just posted an opinion on the matter and didn't do anything further. A waste of time if you ask me...

They don't have to do anything further. We'll take it from there.

Btw, it's not a waste of time: a legal opinion is required for changes, according to the constitution. Yet another reason why the Feb. "decision" and the April followup don't pass the smell test.

What is the next step though, based on THIS (most recent) statement? Legal action? considering that what they did was give a legal opinion, that would seem to be the only next step...or is it just me?

Legal action? Not necessarily. What this, the official statement of the chancellors in their official capacity in discharge of their offical duties under the constitution, does is take the legal cover from the supporters of the change, and transfers it to those opposed. Per the constitutions own wording, such a statement is required for any change. Since there is already a General Assembly scheduled, and now the change has been found wanting by the Archdiocese officiers charged by the constitution to examine such things, it more or less is automatically now on the agenda for said Assembly. Should those trying to push it continue to try to ignore the challenge, the more it is going to come to the fore. And should it come to legal action, this now perhaps takes the edge off the refuge of being a hierarchal Church under the law (sort of like how St. John was able to leave the OCA and takes its Church to ROCOR).

So what you're saying is that now there is a real chance for schism...right?

Reply to statement of the chancelors (so that I don't have to post it again):

So what. What's the point of writing it. They just posted an opinion on the matter and didn't do anything further. A waste of time if you ask me...

They don't have to do anything further. We'll take it from there.

Btw, it's not a waste of time: a legal opinion is required for changes, according to the constitution. Yet another reason why the Feb. "decision" and the April followup don't pass the smell test.

What is the next step though, based on THIS (most recent) statement? Legal action? considering that what they did was give a legal opinion, that would seem to be the only next step...or is it just me?

Legal action? Not necessarily. What this, the official statement of the chancellors in their official capacity in discharge of their offical duties under the constitution, does is take the legal cover from the supporters of the change, and transfers it to those opposed. Per the constitutions own wording, such a statement is required for any change. Since there is already a General Assembly scheduled, and now the change has been found wanting by the Archdiocese officiers charged by the constitution to examine such things, it more or less is automatically now on the agenda for said Assembly. Should those trying to push it continue to try to ignore the challenge, the more it is going to come to the fore. And should it come to legal action, this now perhaps takes the edge off the refuge of being a hierarchal Church under the law (sort of like how St. John was able to leave the OCA and takes its Church to ROCOR).

So what you're saying is that now there is a real chance for schism...right?

I don't know: Was Florence a schism?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Reply to statement of the chancelors (so that I don't have to post it again):

So what. What's the point of writing it. They just posted an opinion on the matter and didn't do anything further. A waste of time if you ask me...

They don't have to do anything further. We'll take it from there.

Btw, it's not a waste of time: a legal opinion is required for changes, according to the constitution. Yet another reason why the Feb. "decision" and the April followup don't pass the smell test.

What is the next step though, based on THIS (most recent) statement? Legal action? considering that what they did was give a legal opinion, that would seem to be the only next step...or is it just me?

Legal action? Not necessarily. What this, the official statement of the chancellors in their official capacity in discharge of their offical duties under the constitution, does is take the legal cover from the supporters of the change, and transfers it to those opposed. Per the constitutions own wording, such a statement is required for any change. Since there is already a General Assembly scheduled, and now the change has been found wanting by the Archdiocese officiers charged by the constitution to examine such things, it more or less is automatically now on the agenda for said Assembly. Should those trying to push it continue to try to ignore the challenge, the more it is going to come to the fore. And should it come to legal action, this now perhaps takes the edge off the refuge of being a hierarchal Church under the law (sort of like how St. John was able to leave the OCA and takes its Church to ROCOR).

So what you're saying is that now there is a real chance for schism...right?

I don't know: Was Florence a schism?

No, but then again it wasn't just the people who rose up, it was the BISHOPS who decided that the people were right and that it was the mind of the church to disagree with Florence, not just a bunch of people saying "stop it, I don't like it" [/child's voice]

Reply to statement of the chancelors (so that I don't have to post it again):

So what. What's the point of writing it. They just posted an opinion on the matter and didn't do anything further. A waste of time if you ask me...

They don't have to do anything further. We'll take it from there.

Btw, it's not a waste of time: a legal opinion is required for changes, according to the constitution. Yet another reason why the Feb. "decision" and the April followup don't pass the smell test.

What is the next step though, based on THIS (most recent) statement? Legal action? considering that what they did was give a legal opinion, that would seem to be the only next step...or is it just me?

Legal action? Not necessarily. What this, the official statement of the chancellors in their official capacity in discharge of their offical duties under the constitution, does is take the legal cover from the supporters of the change, and transfers it to those opposed. Per the constitutions own wording, such a statement is required for any change. Since there is already a General Assembly scheduled, and now the change has been found wanting by the Archdiocese officiers charged by the constitution to examine such things, it more or less is automatically now on the agenda for said Assembly. Should those trying to push it continue to try to ignore the challenge, the more it is going to come to the fore. And should it come to legal action, this now perhaps takes the edge off the refuge of being a hierarchal Church under the law (sort of like how St. John was able to leave the OCA and takes its Church to ROCOR).

So what you're saying is that now there is a real chance for schism...right?

I don't know: Was Florence a schism?

No, but then again it wasn't just the people who rose up, it was the BISHOPS who decided that the people were right and that it was the mind of the church to disagree with Florence, not just a bunch of people saying "stop it, I don't like it" [/child's voice]

You mean like bishop Alexander et alia?

Btw, this adult voice is saying "This is uncanonical, and it will not stand."

« Last Edit: May 17, 2009, 08:39:14 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

His Eminence should draft a letter to the Antiochian Synod, and publicly release it, asking them to table the auxiliary bishops plan for the time being (indefinitely), in light of the irregularities identified by the Archdiocesan Chancellor's legal opinion. My guess is, he's strong enough to retain his throne, but not strong enough to beat down the opposition to the Synodical action.

Reply to statement of the chancelors (so that I don't have to post it again):

So what. What's the point of writing it. They just posted an opinion on the matter and didn't do anything further. A waste of time if you ask me...

They don't have to do anything further. We'll take it from there.

Btw, it's not a waste of time: a legal opinion is required for changes, according to the constitution. Yet another reason why the Feb. "decision" and the April followup don't pass the smell test.

What is the next step though, based on THIS (most recent) statement? Legal action? considering that what they did was give a legal opinion, that would seem to be the only next step...or is it just me?

Legal action? Not necessarily. What this, the official statement of the chancellors in their official capacity in discharge of their offical duties under the constitution, does is take the legal cover from the supporters of the change, and transfers it to those opposed. Per the constitutions own wording, such a statement is required for any change. Since there is already a General Assembly scheduled, and now the change has been found wanting by the Archdiocese officiers charged by the constitution to examine such things, it more or less is automatically now on the agenda for said Assembly. Should those trying to push it continue to try to ignore the challenge, the more it is going to come to the fore. And should it come to legal action, this now perhaps takes the edge off the refuge of being a hierarchal Church under the law (sort of like how St. John was able to leave the OCA and takes its Church to ROCOR).

So what you're saying is that now there is a real chance for schism...right?

I don't know: Was Florence a schism?

No, but then again it wasn't just the people who rose up, it was the BISHOPS who decided that the people were right and that it was the mind of the church to disagree with Florence, not just a bunch of people saying "stop it, I don't like it" [/child's voice]

You mean like bishop Alexander et alia?

Btw, this adult voice is saying "This is uncanonical, and it will not stand."

Sort of, I was referring more to the many synods that took place afterwards (constantinopolitan and otherwise) which reviewed the decisions that were made at Florence, and took into account the mind of the church (aka the people) and decided to reverse the decisions of all of the other bishops and uphold St. Mark's non-signature as the standard for orthodoxy in the situation.

I read the opening of your "A Historical Glance at the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre." I understand the article's explanation that the leadership and dioceses of the Jerusalem Patriarchate were taken over by Greeks in the mid-16th century due to the Turkish conquest.

However, is there anything that says the Brotherhood itself was created at that time without a preceding organization it based itself on? I read on the first chapter on the "Establishment of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre" that the Brotherhood was reorganized in the 17th century to give the Greeks an even stronger hold over it. But reorganizing it doesn't mean that the organization was just created then.

Also, I read a claim that the Brotherhood has some connection to the Spudeoia brotherhood created back in the 4th century by St Helena.What do you think?

I read the opening of your "A Historical Glance at the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre." I understand the article's explanation that the leadership and dioceses of the Jerusalem Patriarchate were taken over by Greeks in the mid-16th century due to the Turkish conquest.

However, is there anything that says the Brotherhood itself was created at that time without a preceding organization it based itself on? I read on the first chapter on the "Establishment of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre" that the Brotherhood was reorganized in the 17th century to give the Greeks an even stronger hold over it. But reorganizing it doesn't mean that the organization was just created then.

Also, I read a claim that the Brotherhood has some connection to the Spudeoia brotherhood created back in the 4th century by St Helena.What do you think?

I read the opening of your "A Historical Glance at the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre." I understand the article's explanation that the leadership and dioceses of the Jerusalem Patriarchate were taken over by Greeks in the mid-16th century due to the Turkish conquest.

However, is there anything that says the Brotherhood itself was created at that time without a preceding organization it based itself on? I read on the first chapter on the "Establishment of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre" that the Brotherhood was reorganized in the 17th century to give the Greeks an even stronger hold over it. But reorganizing it doesn't mean that the organization was just created then.

Also, I read a claim that the Brotherhood has some connection to the Spudeoia brotherhood created back in the 4th century by St Helena.What do you think?

I had missed this before. Quickly-we have the records of the arrangement between the Fatimid Caliph and the Emperor in Constantinople in Jerusalem, the Crusader take over of Jerusalem, the submission of the Patriarch of Jerusalem to the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet I in Constantinople (long before the Ottomans conquered Jerusalem) etc. and there is no arrangements for a "Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher." On top of that, there is lots of records of jurisdiction changing hands-Georgia, for instance, once had rights over the Holy Sites in the Patriarchate. Given the numerous changes in overlords, some reference should have made it in the various confirmations of the institutions of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem before the Society for Tomb Worshiping crops up in the 16th century.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth